4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #88

[10ofRods]

There was a problem with my post (it uploaded mid-typing). I would not use the word perjury quickly that's why I said IDK.

I was referencing a previous post that expert witness Vargas went back on her testimony over the weekend and peers contacted Prosecution, and ultimately she was questioned. I do not know if that is technically perjury or if that is overstating it but there's an issue.

The court seems to be sorting it out and if you watch the video from yesterday, the audio is a little hard to hear. Sorry that got so messed up. Hopefully this posts properly and I don't have to bang my head.

There's definitely an issue. But so far, she's not been charged with or convicted of "perjury" AFAIK. It's a really serious thing to lay on someone.

I don't know what "what went back on" means. I usually have about 4-5 different explanations that I can (if I'm lucky) rank according to my own standards, but if I'm not certain (which is most of the time, as I am a science-oriented person who wants proof), I might have mildly conflicting views. I am not alone.

Can anyone else know if I am within my own bounds of honesty? Or how many views I have and what percentage of reliability I give to each?

I'm certainly not trying to defend people who accept money for proffering one of their opinions to the exclusion of others - which is why, to me, there have so far been no real experts presented by the Defense. Or anyone else, for that matter.

So until a court rules it perjury, it's just "expert opinion," IMO. I will admit that I understand what it's like to used LinkedIn (the Tinder of Employment SM?) to find expert opinion.

I don't think, in this case, that it was perjury (need a ruling) and need more information before deciding whether she has now repudiated (gone back on?) her views or just has other views (like about one-third of us who have posted here, by my estimated.

IMO. And IME (including professional experience).

 

[acutename]

To me too. I bet the State will have plenty of photos depicting an accurate color for BK's hair and his bushy eyebrows through his Drivers License and booking photos at least.

MOO

just curious how the hair cut grooming thing works in detention- does he see a jail barber and get whatever cut he requests?

 

[foreverlennon]

Bryan Kohberger's trial postponed after he waived right to speedy trial - Internewscast Journal

MOSCOW, Idaho — The trial for a man accused of stabbing four University of Idaho students to death late last year will not happen as scheduled on Oct. 2.

internewscast.com

Something seems different with his expression... can't put my finger on it.....From August 23rd, 2023
View attachment 442670

He looks like he could kill here. Seriously. A VERY dark mood . It’s scary. As if we are being shown a little of his rage.

 

[Luna20]

He looks like he could kill here. Seriously. A VERY dark mood . It’s scary. As if we are being shown a little of his rage.

Agree. It’s an eerie look and I think he is enjoying the attention.

 

[10ofRods]

This is the issue I was sending 10ofRods, again still having a technical difficulty so I hope this clarifies.

I need to watch the whole thing (I started at the later point you indicated) but, well, it's not surprising that someone who is admitting to having violated rules and polices in a major case...gets visited by LE (I'm not sure really why this is federal - but, well, it seems to me this "expert" actually brags about breaking a US-wide contract).

And while the expert is already paid, that doesn't make them safe from investigation for breaking rules, does it? AT knew this as well. The expert may or may not have realized what they were getting into.

Being a paid expert is a hard gig - and in this case, I don't get a strong sense of lots of *legal* experience.

 

[10ofRods]

just curious how the hair cut grooming thing works in detention- does he see a jail barber and get whatever cut he requests?

He probably can get any barber he wants, with help from his attorneys. And yes, he'd get whatever cut he requests (as much as any of us do).

My opinion anyway.

 

[Balthazar]

I need to watch the whole thing (I started at the later point you indicated) but, well, it's not surprising that someone who is admitting to having violated rules and polices in a major case...gets visited by LE (I'm not sure really why this is federal - but, well, it seems to me this "expert" actually brags about breaking a US-wide contract).

And while the expert is already paid, that doesn't make them safe from investigation for breaking rules, does it? AT knew this as well. The expert may or may not have realized what they were getting into.

Being a paid expert is a hard gig - and in this case, I don't get a strong sense of lots of *legal* experience.

Please rewatch the entire video of her testimony. She HAS NOT made any such admission at all.

 

[katydid23]

He looks like he could kill here. Seriously. A VERY dark mood . It’s scary. As if we are being shown a little of his rage.

You can really see his new hair colour in this photo too. They lightened and thinned out his hair, trying to make him look less intense. This intense stare isn't helping any.

 

[katydid23]

Please rewatch the entire video of her testimony. She HAS NOT made any such admission at all.

Sounded like an admission to me---like a wink wink nod admission. She explained how it was done, step by step and why it was done. She sure does know how that shortcut works. JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

The fact that at least a few people on this thread see this point differently suggests a jury of twelve might also…

Which way do you see it?

 

[Jurisprudence]

Judge Judge raised issue during Friday’s hearings about witnesses hearing each other’s testimonies. I have a sneaking feeling it’s about that; so basically witnesses would give their testimony and leave the courtroom.

I think Taylor's issue about witnesses was addressed in part. It was discovered and posted by @twall
here #229

 

[Jurisprudence]

I haven't seen this mentioned. The defense motion to dismiss is on the following grounds:

BIASED GRAND JURY,
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE,
LACK OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE,
AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN WITHHOLDING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

Unless the motion under seal will address the the standard of proof under the "Lack of Sufficient Evidence" it seems she might have abandoned this argument.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

just curious how the hair cut grooming thing works in detention- does he see a jail barber and get whatever cut he requests?

Maybe the same as his "personal shopper" who appears to have brought to him 2 tailored suits and various shirts and ties as of this date. lol

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

You can really see his new hair colour in this photo too. They lightened and thinned out his hair, trying to make him look less intense. This intense stare isn't helping any.

Agree. And cut or tweezed his eyebrows imo. Surely the prosecution is seeing this and will be well prepared to address it.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

"Sequestering" or "Restricting" Witnesses?
@rainbowshummingbird said:
"Maybe she will ask for the witnesses to be sequestered."


@katydid23 @rainbowshummingbird

Maybe one or both of you were referring this concept?

"Idaho Rules of Evidence" Terminology =
Excluding Witnesses.

"Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 615. Excluding witnesses.
"(a) At a party's request, the court may order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses' testimony. Or the court may do so on its own"

"But this rule does not authorize excluding:
"(1) a party who is a natural person;
"(2) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person, after being designated as the party's representative by its attorney;
"(3) a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party's claim or defense; or
"(4) a crime victim whose exclusion is prohibited under Article 1, Section 22 of the Idaho Constitution."

I.R.E. 615. Exclusion of Witnesses. | Supreme Court

isc.idaho.gov

I think they would do this as a matter of course. What she was doing yesterday imoo was trying to make allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against the state AGAIN by alleging that the FBI approached her witness. Mind you, the trial hasn't even started. Thompson did a good job of explaining how that came to be. He did say he is in the process of preparing a statement about this. I hope that statement is not sealed. The public needs more transparency. They need to see the allegations being flung and how they are unfounded.

In this respect I wish the judge would not have granted her motion to file her documents (to dismiss the indictment) under seal.

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082323-Order-to-File-the-Memorandum-In-Support-of-Motion-to-Dismiss-Indictment.pdf

If it turns out to be unfounded allegations with no basis in fact, I hope the state moves to unseal it and the judge grants it. Then we can all see for ourselves.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

I think one of the state's biggest hurdles will be the actions or inactions of DM after she saw the masked man in the middle of the night. So many questions arise...

I think they already know the answer to this. I just think they made a deliberate choice not to let us know. I've always thought this. Time will tell.

jmo

 

[katydid23]

This is a pretty good legal analysis of the recent hearing. Very quick and to the point.


00:00 Intro
00:44 Why the State's argument is hard to overcome
01:23 Problems with the defense argument about the targeted investigation
03:05 Problems with the defense argument about suppression
08:11 Why the statistical evidence was the game-changer for me
13:14 How Judge Judge tipped his hand

 

[Jurisprudence]

[…]

Taylor also said her team will be filing a motion to strike the death penalty, which has remained on the table since June 27.
"It places Mr. Kohberger in a position where he has to choose his rights," Taylor said. She told the court she believed her client would have to choose between a speedy trial and effective assistance of counsel. She also put the court on notice that the judge should expect an additional motion to ban cameras in the courtroom.
Later in the hearing, in an unexpected twist, Judge said he was summoned for jury duty in the case.
"It's odd," Judge said, referring to being selected. He asked both the defense and prosecution if they were comfortable with him declining jury duty and continuing to preside over the case. Both agreed.
Kohberger's next hearing is Sept. 1, where the defense will fight to dismiss his grand jury indictment. A new trial date will be set following that hearing.

[…]

Idaho murder suspect Bryan Kohberger waives right to speedy trial

Kohberger's defense plans on asking the court to strike the death penalty and ban cameras in the courtroom.

www.ktvb.com

[BBM]

That's bizarre!

jmo

 

[jepop]

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082323-Motion-to-Dismiss-Indictment-on-Grounds-of-Biased-Grand-Jury-Inadmissible-Evidence.pdf

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR29-22-2805/082323-Motion-to-File-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-to-Dismiss-Indictment-Under-Seal.pdf

Both filed about an hour after Wednesday's Status hearing. And both filed a day after the D's Reply to Objection to Motion to Dismiss (filed 22 August).

At Wednesday's status hearing, the D argued for MtD going ahead on Sept 1 and the P did not object. I believe the P thought then the extra filing referred to by the D at 18th Aug hearing was 'Reply to objection to MtD', filed the day before the status hearing (22nd Aug). P definately should have known better. However, looking at the potential amount of material in these new filings and the fact the P has a week to read, digest and respond, it wouldn't suprise me if they request additional time on the basis of good cause and that the date to hear MtD be altered. And to be fair the Judge should grant that if they do. After all, there is no hurry now and any reasonalble judge would see the state would be prejudiced with insufficient time to respond to a motion of this import. Moo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Yep, called that the first day we found out about a hearing.

AT & Company are nowhere near ready. They've spent the last months trying to get things thrown out of technicalities and 100's of year old precedents. Didn't work. Now they are going to have to present a real defense.

Yeah, good luck with that.

moo

Bingo. I agree. This is a Like x 1,000.

jmo